Brexit Schmexit

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm pointing out that the SNP want to rob the councils and cause a 'benefit' to the poorest paid that's very different to the moron's propaganda poster that appearred in this thread.

If they get forced to find the money from elsewhere we can discuss the merits of what they rob instead.

I'd be very surprised if he has not already got the money put aside somewhere - he will have been well aware that the Greens would extract a price for their support. Indeed I think its perfectly possible that he deliberately underfunded councils so he would have something to offer the Greens. 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

In the meantime, the party you voted for have been exposed as telling porkies - yet again - and you've been proven as trying to divert away from that being exposed.

Do you mean the Greens? I'm not sure what porkies they've been telling. And if you mean the SNP, perhaps you could tell us where they have lied?

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

 

Utter bullshit.

That only applies to scotland when Scotland counts people from rUK as immigrants.

That's how parochial you are.

None of the figures I have quoted or linked to count those moving within the UK as migrants. 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

but without any of the same immigration pressures as proven by the population growth figures, both for the last ten years (about 50% of the UK rate) and for the last decades (about 5% of the UK rate).

Take London and the south East out of the equation and the rate of population growth is not wildly different.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Want to dig out some relevant facts? Facts i know you know, because we've talked about it before?

percentage of English in Scotland?
Percentage of Scots in rUK?

As ever, you have the maths of a 2 year old.

What on earth has this got to do with anything?

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

It's a fact.

Roughly, the percentage of "immigrants" in Scotland is broadly the same as England, but only when Scotland counts English as immigrants - where those English are about 10% of the population.

You're lying again. 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

because immigration is over double the rate, and has been significantly higher over decades.

we've covered that.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

nope, they've shown the same attitudes but a difference in importance.

When a issue is bigger - say more-than double the rate - it become a more important issue.

I'm disappointed in the attitudes to immigration on both sides of the border. 

You have no evidence to support your claim that immigration is less of an issue up here only because there is less of it. Its a view you are entitled to hold. Yet again, however, you dress up your claims as if they are accepted facts. 

 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it also confirmed just how much you've been lying with your other words in the same post.

"Differences between Scotland and England here are not easily explained away as the result of differently sized immigration flows."

... but they are easily explained by Scots spouting "English racists" as comfy did and you backed him up .... to prove your own racism.

Did you read that quote you pulled out? I bolded part of it to help you? 

You seem desperate to brand Comfy and myself as racist.  I don't think there is any need for that but I can't say I'm surprised.

 

 

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

do you think Sturgeon should be trying to get some immigration powers devolved for the reasons I`ve suggested.

not unless she has a solution to the 'head south' problem, because otherwise the powers are devolved but the effects are not.

It doesn't need a wall tho. It could be something like Sturgeon voting in favour of a greater paperwork burden on immigrants, so that paperwork exists in order to differentiate working rights in one place but not another.

I'm pointing out that she has to take 'bad'* measures against all immigrants in order to create the environment where a Scottish system could work.

(* I'm meaning the sort of things she's previously said were wrong to do, not that they're really particularly bad. Registration is done everywhere apart from the UK).

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

not unless she has a solution to the 'head south' problem, because otherwise the powers are devolved but the effects are not.

It doesn't need a wall tho. It could be something like Sturgeon voting in favour of a greater paperwork burden on immigrants, so that paperwork exists in order to differentiate working rights in one place but not another.

I'm pointing out that she has to take 'bad'* measures against all immigrants in order to create the environment where a Scottish system could work.

(* I'm meaning the sort of things she's previously said were wrong to do, not that they're really particularly bad. Registration is done everywhere apart from the UK).

we already have limits on immigration in terms of time  - students e.g.  - there is no reason why we shouldn't have geographical limitations too. It is already the employer's responsibility to check that anyone they employ has the necessary paperwork to entitle them to work here.

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

Do you mean the Greens? I'm not sure what porkies they've been telling. And if you mean the SNP, perhaps you could tell us where they have lied?

with the poster that got posted in this thread. It might not be an outright lie, but it very strongly mis-represents the effect of the budget in the round, and how much of it is actually being achieved by what the SG is doing.

Much of the saving to poorer tax payers gets (as an average) taken back via higher council tax &/or lesser council services, and much of the money used for the changes comes from Westminster and not by financial wizardry in the SG.

It's a good thing (which i'm pretty sure I've said already).

It's just not everything of the good thing that poster suggests.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

we already have limits on immigration in terms of time  - students e.g.  - there is no reason why we shouldn't have geographical limitations too. It is already the employer's responsibility to check that anyone they employ has the necessary paperwork to entitle them to work here.

yep, but at the moment that's not enough to cover the problems of 'heading south'. 

The tories are proposing a new 'registration' system which would, I think, cover the bases. 

I'm saying that Sturgeon would have to vote in favour of something like that. Otherwise she's not serious about immigration for just-Scotland.

[eFestivals]

45 minutes ago, LJS said:

Take London and the south East out of the equation and the rate of population growth is not wildly different.

over the longer term it is.

Scotland's population was just about static till around 15 years ago, while England's wasn't.

This has meant that plenty of resources were already stretched in England before the new higher influxes from around 2004, while Scotland had more slack to absorb the same local pressures (or at the same levels).

 

45 minutes ago, LJS said:

You're lying again. 

Nope. 

 

45 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm disappointed in the attitudes to immigration on both sides of the border. 

and so am I, but i don't claim they're not there.

 

45 minutes ago, LJS said:

You have no evidence to support your claim that immigration is less of an issue up here only because there is less of it. Its a view you are entitled to hold. Yet again, however, you dress up your claims as if they are accepted facts. 

There is evidence of less of it. That's evidence

And attitudes towards immigration are roughly of the same "there's too much" in Eng/Scot., but what differs is how important immigration is compared to other things.

It hardly bad joining-the-dots to suggest that the lower immigration is why it's of lower importance.

Or to point out the facts of the differing rates of growth of populations, and the differing pressures that has on infrastructure/services.

 

45 minutes ago, LJS said:

Did you read that quote you pulled out? I bolded part of it to help you? 

You seem desperate to brand Comfy and myself as racist.  I don't think there is any need for that but I can't say I'm surprised.

it's the willy-waving of the 62% vote, and the claims of how that was a vote about immigration, and how the vote was different in England (to suggest that therefore England has different views of about immigration).

It wasn't a vote on immigration. A vote on immigration would come out like the surveys, with no significant difference.

[LJS]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There is evidence of less of it. That's evidence

And attitudes towards immigration are roughly of the same "there's too much" in Eng/Scot., but what differs is how important immigration is compared to other things.

It hardly bad joining-the-dots to suggest that the lower immigration is why it's of lower importance.

Or to point out the facts of the differing rates of growth of populations, and the differing pressures that has on infrastructure/services.

 

Correlation does not imply causation

"In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

 

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

it's the willy-waving of the 62% vote, and the claims of how that was a vote about immigration, and how the vote was different in England (to suggest that therefore England has different views of about immigration).

It wasn't a vote on immigration. A vote on immigration would come out like the surveys, with no significant difference.

I think you are on dangerous ground here Neil.  I may just keep this for the next time you tell me I voted for lower corporation tax in 2014

 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

Correlation does not imply causation

 

First you said there was no evidence. There's evidence.

Now you say something different, without saying anything at all.

So why not say how exactly it's different to what i said, if it's different to what I said.

If you don't have a clue, say you don't have a clue - and realise that gives you no space to call out someone who has formed a conclusion.

 

Quote

"In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

No shit sherlock.

It doesn't prove me wrong.

I'm well aware there's other factors in the mix too. For example, i don't think I've ever seen any leaver from Scotland argue the sovereignty angle, while it's a regular from English leavers - and that's quite possibly because 50%-ish of Scots don't feel they have sovereignty to have lost to the EU.

Meanwhile, why not refer back to comfy and his false claims of a 62% vote in favour of free movement....?

 

Quote

I think you are on dangerous ground here Neil.  I may just keep this for the next time you tell me I voted for lower corporation tax in 2014

And yet the Scot with the patently false claim of a vote on free movement which he then contrasted with England on a false basis gets a free pass, so that another Scot can attack the Englishman who pulled the first scot up on his false claim.

I'm definitely wrong, aren't i?

Edited December 18, 2017 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Hi Neil,

The question was the same up here on the eu ref.  The 62% vote that either does or doesn`t exist was on remaining in the EU which obviously includes the free movement angle you mention above.

I think voters across the UK knew that when they voted. I almost certain of this. If I didn`t put the word remain after the 62% then I apologise for your confusion. I quite often do and will try and ensure I always do. Never assume obviously 

The words free movement obviously featured heavily during the campaign and ,most accept that immigration was an issue for many people wherever they lay their hat.

The one thing I don`t get......we are on the same side here ( remain ) I think. Why are you not pleased that 62% of Scotland voted Remain. Rural or urban made little difference across all 32 areas.

Rather than you being happy with this, you continually find surveys of 2 men and a dug to try and disprove something that you so obviously support. I struggle with this.

Do you think the Ireland solution when we have one will be relevant to the Scottish situation we have been discussing ?

[eFestivals]

59 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

The question was the same up here on the eu ref.  The 62% vote that either does or doesn`t exist was on remaining in the EU which obviously includes the free movement angle you mention above.

Yep, but a vote to remain isn't necessarily an endorsement of that free movement. It can be in spite of free movement.

 

Quote

The words free movement obviously featured heavily during the campaign and ,most accept that immigration was an issue for many people wherever they lay their hat.

Yep, but a vote to remain isn't necessarily an endorsement of that free movement. It can be in spite of free movement.

The 62% vote was a vote for remain, and nothing else.

That 62% is also irrelevant. There was only a whole-UK vote.

Sturgeon wants special Scottish privileges, as her demand for a veto showed.

The Scottish people don't, as their vote for the UK showed.

Never mind, eh?

 

Quote

The one thing I don`t get......we are on the same side here ( remain ) I think. Why are you not pleased that 62% of Scotland voted Remain. Rural or urban made little difference across all 32 areas.

I'm very happy for you, just as I'm happy for Bristol to have voted even stronger in favour.

But that doesn't mean I think that gives me special snowflake rights, where i might demand a veto over other voters (ie: make myself more important), or where I pretend the vote wasn't held on the basis it was.

 

Quote

Rather than you being happy with this, you continually find surveys of 2 men and a dug to try and disprove something that you so obviously support. I struggle with this.

I don't support your bullshit. I was calling out your bullshit.

 

Quote

Do you think the Ireland solution when we have one will be relevant to the Scottish situation we have been discussing ?

The Ireland solution is about integration on an island, and not the division on an island that you're in favour of.

The Ireland solution is because Ireland is a special case. 

Amusingly, nutty nats used to demand that Ireland was treated as a special case, and as soon as it's treated as a special case the nutty nats say it can't be treated as a special case. 

(ps: that's every and all nutty nats, btw. You, farage, the DUP, all together).

Edited December 18, 2017 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

Glad we are not on a deadline or anything!

 

[LJS]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, but a vote to remain isn't necessarily an endorsement of that free movement. It can be in spite of free movement.

OK....

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, but a vote to remain isn't necessarily an endorsement of that free movement. It can be in spite of free movement.

OK....

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The 62% vote was a vote for remain, and nothing else.

That 62% is also irrelevant. There was only a whole-UK vote.

Sturgeon wants special Scottish privileges, as her demand for a veto showed.

The Scottish people don't, as their vote for the UK showed.

A vote against independence wasn't necessarily a vote against Scotland having a veto on future EU exit. It might have been a vote in spite of it.

 

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Never mind, eh?

 

Indeed

 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

A vote against independence wasn't necessarily a vote against Scotland having a veto on future EU exit. It might have been a vote in spite of it.

yep, I'm sure for those who think themselves super-special it was.

For those who take a less self centred and parochial view, less so.

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, I'm sure for those who think themselves super-special it was.

For those who take a less self centred and parochial view, less so.

What about those who apply different rules to different referenda when it suits their argument?

Edited December 18, 2017 by LJS

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

What about those who apply different rules to different referenda when it suits their argument?

Like Sturgeon, you mean...?

I've got to say you've been remarkably good yourself, not tripping up with criticisms of the EU ref that might be applied back to Scotland. (it's probably been killing you )

 

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Like Sturgeon, you mean...?

No. You.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I've got to say you've been remarkably good yourself, not tripping up with criticisms of the EU ref that might be applied back to Scotland. (it's probably been killing you )

 

You say the nicest things.

Nothing is killing me. I've criticised the EU referendum often and openly. My main criticism is that we were told repeatedly that a no vote was a vote to keep us in the EU.

Scotland's very different vote just underlines how badly served we are by Westminster.

(Incidentally, I think you are badly served by Westminster too.)

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

My main criticism is that we were told repeatedly that a no vote was a vote to keep us in the EU.

and yet that's not true.

There was no irrevocable promise, just a a statement of the facts of the consequences of indy in the circumstances of that time. 

And the opposite argument was made by Salmond and Sturgeon, and rejected by the people of Scotland.

And then Sturgeon said she wanted an indyref because the UK had voted leave. The people of Scotland told here where to put it.

No one has been stitched up or hoodwinked by that truth from the indyref... unless your countrymen are too stupid to understand how they've been done over...?

You need to find a better grievance, one with at least one supporting fact.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

Scotland's very different vote just underlines how badly served we are by Westminster.

 

Yeah, freedom for every bedroom, there should never be opposing opinions to bring people down.

As it seems to have passed you by, no matter where you draw the line and no matter what system you use, there's always a significant body of different opinion that "badly served" by its govt. There's always people on the losing side.

Moving everything to Holyrood doesn't improve that one iota.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

and yet that's not true.

There was no irrevocable promise, just a a statement of the facts of the consequences of indy in the circumstances of that time. 

And the opposite argument was made by Salmond and Sturgeon, and rejected by the people of Scotland.

Aye, they said what if the Tories win the election & we have a referendum? 

So desperate were better together to win that Ruth Davidson ridiculed the notion that her party might win the election.

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

And then Sturgeon said she wanted an indyref because the UK had voted leave. The people of Scotland told here where to put it.

Where did we do that Neil? 

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

No one has been stitched up or hoodwinked by that truth from the indyref... unless your countrymen are too stupid to understand how they've been done over...?

You need to find a better grievance, one with at least one supporting fact.

Don't worry, Neil, we're well aware how we've been done over.

[zahidf]

EU: Non

 

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yeah, freedom for every bedroom, there should never be opposing opinions to bring people down.

Oh Neil, it's a while since you've tried to lure me into your bedroom.  And while we're in there, can you tell where I've ever said people can't hold different opinions?

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As it seems to have passed you by, no matter where you draw the line and no matter what system you use, there's always a significant body of different opinion that "badly served" by its govt. There's always people on the losing side.

Indeed. 

I draw the line at the Tweed.

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Moving everything to Holyrood doesn't improve that one iota.

I'm confused. I thought we were moving everything to your bedroom.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Aye, they said what if the Tories win the election & we have a referendum? 

So desperate were better together to win that Ruth Davidson ridiculed the notion that her party might win the election.

no one thought they would. 

But whatever, the Scottish people are happy - for now at least - with how things are. They don't feel brexit is such a bad thing that the UK must be chucked overboard.

 

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Where did we do that Neil? 

You haven't noticed that Sturgeon has stopped talking about an imminent indyref?

 

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Don't worry, Neil, we're well aware how we've been done over.

Then Scotland is happy to be done over and you're no nearer indy no matter what.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

Oh Neil, it's a while since you've tried to lure me into your bedroom.  And while we're in there, can you tell where I've ever said people can't hold different opinions?

you said that those with a different opinion to a govt are badly served by that govt.

Which i rather awkwardly pointed out still exists if Scotland goes indy.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

you said that those with a different opinion to a govt are badly served by that govt.

No I didn't.

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Which i rather awkwardly pointed out still exists if Scotland goes indy.

No need to feel awkward, Neil. Just get over it.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

No I didn't.

you'll have to tell me what it is about a parliament's specific location which makes it bad, then.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

No need to feel awkward, Neil. Just get over it.

i'm happy for you to throw Scotland over a cliff if you want to, but I'm much less happy with the boris/gove/farage-liars you become in your attempt to do it.

if its so great, why do you have to lie about it?